Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[BlackSpidy]

Theymos once said "consensus" is 95%. Or so I hear. I think we're looking forward towards the day he says "well... given as how Classic is 25% of the mined blocks... 'consensus' is now 75%! Activate Segwit unilaterally on the behalf of Bitcoin Core development team!". That way he can't bitch when 75% of the hashing network decides to implement larger block limits despite the Bitcoin Core development team.

Some of us want a capacity upgrade in April and all the other benefits of segwit. Why are so many classic supporters trying to prevent this capacity upgrade? It certainly doesn't prevent any future maxBlockSize increase; why can't we have segwit to add an effective 1.8MB to 2MB and than later increase the the effective capacity to 3.6 to 4MB?

I, for one, don't trust the more buggy and complicated solution. The core dev team is free to release Segwit whenever they want. It's up to the community to adopt or not. I don't know what game they're playing... given how they've decided not to take the simple solution that I just showed. The solution that about a third of nodes would already recognize as valid? Yeah. I'm holding out for that one, and as the mined blocks increases to 75%, I will be behind it every step of the way.

It's already hard enough to explain to my friends what a blockchain is. Now I'm going to have to explain Segwit. Great.

[JayJuanGee]

I'm a bit surprised by the shrinking relative volume of BTC trading on Bitstamp.



https://bitcoinity.org/markets/list?currency=ALL&span=24h

I understand that some of the shrinking trade volume is attributable to low (or no) fees on other exchanges, and some of the low relative volume comes from the marginal trading (etc) that is allowed on other exchanges.

Nonetheless, I remain a bit surprised by this relative volume lowering trend on Bitstamp, and I am thinking that volume and trade on Stamp is a larger reflection of overall BTC market forces and accurate prices; however, if I am failing to account for some material and relevant market dynamics, then I may be looking at the wrong exchange to gauge BTC market sentiment.

Currently, I am thinking that when prices begin to move, then Stamp's relative BTC trade volume will pick up.

I wonder whether in the larger scheme of things, is stamp losing market share and influence?

[JayJuanGee]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

There seems to be some fuzzy logic going on here.



The status quo does not lose consensus or its position merely because you get 10, 20 or even close to 50% of people complaining or protesting.  That's ridiculous.


The status quo keeps going, and the only way you change the status quo is building your own consensus...... which is an overwhelming majority... and then you can cause a change to the status quo.


It's weird if people think that causing a bunch of ruckus is the way to undermine consensus.. because it does not matter to the status quo.  It only matters to the implementation of new changes if you cannot reach consensus regarding changes (otherwise the old system keeps plodding on - even if perhaps 50% are whining with big mouths about it). 

The best solutions are going to be to attempt to build consensus rather than undermining old consensus or whining about the status quo or whining about the past... If you want to build something better, then you should strive towards building consensus and convincing others that it is a good idea, and then if it really is a good idea, then it will be adopted.  That is my current understanding of seg wit.... Seg wit has more or less achieved consensus and is going to be going live because it has achieved consensus.

[BitUsher]

I, for one, don't trust the more buggy and complicated solution.

Segwit is actually quite elegant solution that solves many problems and the reason why classic supporters like Gavin support it.

It's already hard enough to explain to my friends what a blockchain is. Now I'm going to have to explain Segwit. Great.

Why would segwit even come up in conversation to non-technical friends? Technical people appreciate it for its ingenuity and elegance in solving many problems within bitcoin. Perhaps you dislike segwit because you don't quite understand it? If not can you name a very specific technical reason why you dislike it?

[bargainbin]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

There seems to be some fuzzy logic going on here.

Of course there's fuzzy logic going on here. Don't use jargon you don't understand.

The status quo does not lose consensus or its position merely because you get 10, 20 or even close to 50% of people complaining or protesting.  That's ridiculous.

Good luck with making that segwit thingy happen. Enjoy your status quo: 3tps

Seg wit has more or less achieved consensus and is going to be going live because it has achieved consensus.

Nah. Needs 95% support, ain't got it. Hilarious, since thermos & co. set that bar

[BlackSpidy]

I, for one, don't trust the more buggy and complicated solution.

Segwit is actually quite elegant solution that solves many problems and the reason why classic supporters like Gavin support it.

It's already hard enough to explain to my friends what a blockchain is. Now I'm going to have to explain Segwit. Great.

Why would segwit even come up in conversation to non-technical friends? Technical people appreciate it for its ingenuity and elegance in solving many problems within bitcoin. Perhaps you dislike segwit because you don't quite understand it? If not can you name a very specific technical reason why you dislike it?

Did I read wrongly that Segwit had bugs that needed work on from the dev team? Because that's one con on it's column, while a simple block size increase is a much more speedy (and currently, less buggy) way to provide room for growth in both transactions and volume. Sure, Segwit can be looked at as an elegant way of providing more room, but it looks like building several jetpacks in order to get around building a bridge. Sure, jetpacks are cool and all... but maybe we set a working bridge while the jetpacks are being developed and demonstrated to be safe?

Right now, I oppose Segwit while it hasn't been implemented and shown to work properly. Hey, maybe the jetpack project gets done before the bridge. Cool. I, frankly, oppose it right now, mostly to see what Theymos will do with less than 95% consensus (hopefully, by the time it's rolled out, 75% consensus). Is he going to pull one of those [insert whatever we're calling 75% mining power backed change today]? I don't know. I'm interested to see how the dominant dev team act when they are not as dominant as they were 2 months ago, when bitcoin classic had cero nodes and 0% of hash power behind it. Enough to push back Segwit a bit.

JayJuanGee says that it's (seemingly) the consensus that it's not an emergency. We can afford to do this little test, right?
I show my opinion in the network by running a certain node. I think it'll be part of 51% of nodes and hash power (measured by the latest 1000 blocks) by... July? We'll see 

[notme]

Quote is from Hearn's rage quit. By growth he's talking about giving free access to something that is limited in supply by design. Think it's obvious that it won't work. Make a block 80MB and if it's free (or almost free) to fill up someone will. Utilization can continue to grow even if it costs few cents extra for a space in a block.

It will never be free to fill up a block.  There is always a cost.  However, when the block is 1 MB and it is already close to full with normal transactions, the cost to fill it is affordable to some.  If the block is much larger, it would be much more expensive to fill it and cause transaction delays.  Miners will always set a minimum price/kb to include data in a block.

The argument is not that more space is bad. The argument is that at certain point the cost (in centralization) outweighs the benefit of trying to keep transactions few cents cheaper.

1mb is already filled up (arguably by spam but nevertheless) how long will it take to fill 2mb? Then 4mb if bitcoin will start to take off? Do you think that 8mb is viable? What about 16mb? At what size do you feel the size of the block will centralize the network to the point where you start to get worried and thinking that maybe letting satoshidice pay 2 cents per transaction is not worth it?

That is a question best left to the node operators.  Price should be determined by cost, not artificial scarcity.  Miners will only add a transaction if the transaction fee exceeds the cost of processing and storing the transaction.  Non-mining nodes already have the power to refuse to forward any transactions they feel shouldn't be included.

There is a lot of slack capacity.  Nodes mostly sit idle.  Remove the limit, or let it be adaptive and you will see the limit be determined by technological advancement.  Anything else is centralized economic planning.  Let the market find the optimal blocksize.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

When is SegWit set to be actioned or is there no date? Just a promise of April....maybe

[BitUsher]

Did I read wrongly that Segwit had bugs that needed work on from the dev team?

If you are referring to the testnet HF , than that was a false alarm.

but it looks like building several jetpacks in order to get around building a bridge. Sure, jetpacks are cool and all... but maybe we set a working bridge while the jetpacks are being developed and demonstrated to be safe?

You are insinuating features being tacked on when segwit includes critical improvements which are important for the capacity upgrade like reducing UTXO growth and allowing for payment channels to develop.

Right now, I oppose Segwit while it hasn't been implemented and shown to work properly.

Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April. What gives you the impression it isn't already working properly, when many of us have been using it since December?

Cool. I, frankly, oppose it right now, mostly to see what Theymos will do with less than 95% consensus (hopefully, by the time it's rolled out, 75% consensus). Is he going to pull one of those [insert whatever we're calling 75% mining power backed change today]? I don't know.

Who cares about theymos. He is just one person and doesn't represent the bitcoin ecosystem . It appears you have an unhealthy obsession with his opinion.

[Patel]

Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April.

It's not coming out in April. It's gonna be June/July release.

[arklan]

Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April.

It's not coming out in April. It's gonna be June/July release.

i'll believe it when i see it.

[abercrombie]

are we rich yet??  

 

[BitUsher]

Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April.

It's not coming out in April. It's gonna be June/July release.

No one knows exactly when its coming out as there is still more testing to be done but as far as the expectations are concerned it is expected April /May ... not June /July according to the latest meeting https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/2016/03/17/  

0.13 is rolling out in june.

My guess is that May is likely however , so I should probably stop suggesting April.

[JayJuanGee]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

There seems to be some fuzzy logic going on here.

Of course there's fuzzy logic going on here. Don't use jargon you don't understand.

Looks like you are attempting to employ your own diversion from the topic by pointing fingers.   I fully explained what I meant in my post, and if you want some further explanation of some "jargon", then let me know.  My main point was to attempt to get at substance rather than getting caught up in technicalities (which seems to be ripe stomping grounds for trolls)

The status quo does not lose consensus or its position merely because you get 10, 20 or even close to 50% of people complaining or protesting.  That's ridiculous.

Good luck with making that segwit thingy happen. Enjoy your status quo: 3tps

I'm not experiencing the "seg wit thingy" on my own.  It is likely the next step of implementation with further developments to come.  There is no need to get caught up in some kind of stagnant version of bitcoin because bitcoin is currently in a very good place, and it seems very likely that bitcoin is going to be experiencing a lot of new innovations and expansions.. seg wit is coming first and then likely further scaling, user expansion and user friendliness changes coming thereafter.

There are a lot of networking effects in respect to bitcoin, so it really does not matter too much what I think because there are a lot of developments happening on an ongoing basis.

Seg wit has more or less achieved consensus and is going to be going live because it has achieved consensus.

Nah. Needs 95% support, ain't got it. Hilarious, since thermos & co. set that bar

Who cares what the fuck Theymos says?   (Edit:    hahahahahahaha      I see that BitUsher beat me to this comment... but anyhow, I will keep it here... because I meant it.)

He is only one voice in the whole community, and there is no bitcoin dictator, as some people like to attempt to describe.  

Also, you are making your point out of context, and really seem to be asserting my earlier point.  The status quo is not likely going to change unless there is widespread support, and that is in the 95% territory..

The mere fact that there is not 95% support does not stop bitcoin from living on..., and that is my exact point... there could be 50% or more of you screaming stupid ass fuckers going on and on about problems in bitcoin and that we need 2mb etc etc etc... but if your ideas and/or specific potentially constructive proposals do not reach consensus, then we stick with 1mb... .. anyhow I seem to be repeating myself.

[JayJuanGee]

I, for one, don't trust the more buggy and complicated solution.

Segwit is actually quite elegant solution that solves many problems and the reason why classic supporters like Gavin support it.

It's already hard enough to explain to my friends what a blockchain is. Now I'm going to have to explain Segwit. Great.

Why would segwit even come up in conversation to non-technical friends? Technical people appreciate it for its ingenuity and elegance in solving many problems within bitcoin. Perhaps you dislike segwit because you don't quite understand it? If not can you name a very specific technical reason why you dislike it?

Did I read wrongly that Segwit had bugs that needed work on from the dev team? Because that's one con on it's column, while a simple block size increase is a much more speedy (and currently, less buggy) way to provide room for growth in both transactions and volume. Sure, Segwit can be looked at as an elegant way of providing more room, but it looks like building several jetpacks in order to get around building a bridge. Sure, jetpacks are cool and all... but maybe we set a working bridge while the jetpacks are being developed and demonstrated to be safe?

Right now, I oppose Segwit while it hasn't been implemented and shown to work properly. Hey, maybe the jetpack project gets done before the bridge. Cool. I, frankly, oppose it right now, mostly to see what Theymos will do with less than 95% consensus (hopefully, by the time it's rolled out, 75% consensus). Is he going to pull one of those [insert whatever we're calling 75% mining power backed change today]? I don't know. I'm interested to see how the dominant dev team act when they are not as dominant as they were 2 months ago, when bitcoin classic had cero nodes and 0% of hash power behind it. Enough to push back Segwit a bit.

JayJuanGee says that it's (seemingly) the consensus that it's not an emergency. We can afford to do this little test, right?
I show my opinion in the network by running a certain node. I think it'll be part of 51% of nodes and hash power (measured by the latest 1000 blocks) by... July? We'll see 

I have quite a bit of confidence that there are all kinds of tests being done before seg wit goes live... and bitcoin keeps plugging along like a honey badger.

It doesn't really matter too much about what I say because there are a lot of technical people and developers that are engaging on a more practical level regarding coding and testing etc.

I personally have not seen any actual data showing an emergency because what I see seems to show multiple spamming and attacks on bitcoin without any major problems.  The biggest appearance of an emergency is a bunch of screamers saying over and over that there is an emergency, but the data and the actual facts do not support such observations regarding an "emergency" status.

[BitUsher]

Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April.

It's not coming out in April. It's gonna be June/July release.

Actually now that I think about it some more It will likely be introduced as a SF in May and than take till June to get 95% of support from miners to activate since its being released with version bits thus you are correct in a sense.

[BlackSpidy]

Who cares about theymos. He is just one person and doesn't represent the bitcoin ecosystem . It appears you have an unhealthy obsession with his opinion.

I'm as curious about theymos' response to those circumstances as I am about your response to this comment. Would you say I have an obsession with your opinion? You're just one person not representative of the bitcoin ecosystem, yet here I am. Talking to you through the internet. As of right now, any unilateral change to bitcoin on behalf of the Bitcoin Core development team has no consensus, according to the 95% guideline he provided. I'm telling you I'm curious about his response to a growing Classic blocks and nodes not being of the Core variety, specifically, when time comes for changes on behalf of the Bitcon Core dev team.

I don't remember the source, but I remember reading from the dev team that there were bugs being removed from Segwit, recently. Must be part of the reason why its not out yet. I don't know who's been using it since when. It's not on the bitcoin network, it hasn't run the real world testing. My opinion is a bit of "Yeah, I'm gonna step away from this" until I see how well/poorly it performs.

Here's how that sequence goes: Implementation without 95% consensus, I observe how some proponents of it justify the change with a consensus below that benchmark (theymos being one of them [the most known one]), I observe how it goes and form a revised opinion based on how it's doing. Seems like a reasonable course of action that you're making a big fuss about. Well, to me, anyways.

[BitUsher]

I'm as curious about theymos' response to those circumstances as I am about your response to this comment. Would you say I have an obsession with your opinion? You're just one person not representative of the bitcoin ecosystem, yet here I am. Talking to you through the internet.

The odd thing is you mentioned him when he wasn't in the conversation and wasn't related to the topic in any meaningful way. Why does his opinion matter so much to you that you would single him out in such an offtopic matter ?

I do not see the activation threshold being lowered below the original 75activates/95enforced for a soft fork.... If anything Segwit activation threshold will likely be increased to 95% due to it being deployed with BIP 9 (Version Bits) . If it gets delayed due to Classic miners rejecting a capacity increase so be it.

Believe it or not, Many core developers do indeed believe they need a large consensus of 75/95 for softforks and 95-99% for HFs as they are in the service of the community and have an ethical responsibility to protect the ecosystem... This isn't a stalling tactic like some classic supporters seem to conspire about.

[abercrombie]

If tomorrow's daily candle ends positive, that'll be 4 daily green candles in a row.  

Haven't seen that since December's march from $354 to $421.  

are we rich yet??  

[JayJuanGee]

I'm as curious about theymos' response to those circumstances as I am about your response to this comment. Would you say I have an obsession with your opinion? You're just one person not representative of the bitcoin ecosystem, yet here I am. Talking to you through the internet.

The odd thing is you mentioned him when he wasn't in the conversation and wasn't related to the topic in any meaningful way. Why does his opinion matter so much to you that you would single him out in such an offtopic matter ?

I do not see the activation threshold being lowered below the original 75activates/95enforced for a soft fork.... If anything Segwit activation threshold will likely be increased to 95% due to it being deployed with BIP 9 (Version Bits) . If it gets delayed due to Classic miners rejecting a capacity increase so be it.

Believe it or not, Many core developers do indeed believe they need a large consensus of 75/95 for softforks and 95-99% for HFs as they are in the service of the community and have an ethical responsibility to protect the ecosystem... This isn't a stalling tactic like some classic supporters seem to conspire about.

You are correct, that if some classic supporters get together to obstruct the achieving of consensus, then bitcoin merely stays in its current status.

There could be 5 or 10% holding back, for the mere sake of it, but that could cause it's own problems and even a certain amount of pressure from the remaining 90% .. hopefully, it does not come to that, but that bridge is possible and would need to be considered and maybe crossed if and when it gets to that point.